Homosexual marriage and the Supreme Court

Unless you were spending yesterday at the beach, not paying attention to anything but the sun and the sand and the surf, you’ve heard of the two Supreme Court decisions concerning same-sex marriage, Hollingsworth v Perry, and United States v Windsor, the former dismissing the federal challenge to the California state Supreme Court’s ruling on Proposition 8, and the latter with the Defense of Marriage Act.

The rulings aren’t the complete victories for which either side hoped. In Hollingsworth, the majority dismissed the federal challenge to the state court’s rulings. The state Supreme Court invalidated part of the state’s own constitution, and said that same-sex marriage is a right in the Pyrite State. In Windsor, the majority — a different majority — held that the definition of marriage has always been something left up to the states, and the federal government really has no business trying to trump state authority on that matter,1 and that the federal government could not hold that a couple legally married in a state which recognizes their marriage are not married for federal purposes. Left undecided was DoMA’s provision that states which do not allow homosexual marriage do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states which do allow such.

Your Editor wrote, five years ago:

I have one, and really only one, concern. I want churches protected from criminal and civil liability if they refuse to perform a same-sex marriage. Many of our friends on the left pooh-pooh the idea that churches could be compelled to perform such, under the First Amendment, but seem strangely reticent to be willing to enact more explicit protections for churches in the event that same-sex marriages become legal.

To me, it’s simple: it doesn’t take much imagination to guess what could happen if an interracial couple went to a church, and asked to be married, and the minister refused because his church does not believe in interracial marriages. That minister and his church would face being sued, because they had discriminated on race, and churches fit the definition of a public accommodation. Since we license ministers to perform marriages, they have a dual religious-state legal function.

Well sooner or later, a same-sex couple is going to present themselves to a Catholic priest, and ask for a nuptial Mass. The priest will have no choice but to refuse, and he, and his parish, and his diocese will all get sued. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which undid a discharge under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy held that classifications based on sexual orientation would be examined under a higher level of scrutiny, Patterico explains it here. This could mean that discrimination based on sexual orientation might be held to the same standard as discrimination based on race.

In the event of legally recognized same-sex marriage, we need solid protection for churches.

I should have included protections for ordinary people, for acting within their consciences:

I told you so: the state penalizes a Methodist group because it will not accommodate same sex unions

Posted by  on 30 December 2008, 3:51 pm

I’ve said previously that my one, and only one, objection to legal same-sex marriage it would be used to try to force churches to act against their beliefs.

I have one, and really only one, concern. I want churches protected from criminal and civil liability if they refuse to perform a same-sex marriage. Many of our friends on the left pooh-pooh the idea that churches could be compelled to perform such, under the First Amendment, but seem strangely reticent to be willing to enact more explicit protections for churches in the event that same-sex marriages become legal.

To me, it’s simple: it doesn’t take much imagination to guess what could happen if an interracial couple went to a church, and asked to be married, and the minister refused because his church does not believe in interracial marriages. That minister and his church would face being sued, because they had discriminated on race, and churches fit the definition of a public accommodation. Since we license ministers to perform marriages, they have a dual religious-state legal function.

Well sooner or later, a same-sex couple is going to present themselves to a Catholic priest, and ask for a nuptial Mass. The priest will have no choice but to refuse, and he, and his parish, and his diocese will all get sued. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which undid a discharge under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy held that classifications based on sexual orientation would be examined under a higher level of scrutiny, Patterico explains it here. This could mean that discrimination based on sexual orientation might be held to the same standard as discrimination based on race.

In the event of legally recognized same-sex marriage, we need solid protection for churches.

Our friends on the left — Aphrael being the notable exception — all pooh-poohed that concern, saying that the First Amendment would prohibit such a thing, said that addressing my concern was unnecessary, and a waste of time. Yet, somehow, they were rather reluctant to codify any protections addressing my concern, even though they claimed it was unnecessary, and would, therefore, be harmless to them.

More at the link, but the passage of time has proved me to have been right: homosexual activists have been pushing and pushing against people who do not wish to rent their facilities or cater or provide cakes or service or whatevers for same-sex marriage ceremonies.

This is going to get uglier.
_______________________
Related Articles:

_______________________

  1. Your Editor wonders if we will ever again see Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan defer to state’s rights on any other issue.

35 Comments

  1. “This is going to get uglier.”

    You are officially invited to attend the leper’s orgy and solidarity rally. Regrets not accepted. State interest, and all of that.

  2. It’s quite easy to get around serving gays if you choose. If they’re white and gay just refuse to serve them because they’re white. If they are “people of color” and gay refuse them service because you wish cater to moslems.

    In the first case it’s okay to discriminate against whites. In the second instance it’s okay to discriminate on behalf of moslems. Hoist the PC libtards on their on petard.

    Don’t freak out Rebus, it’s sarcasm.

  3. I’m with Justice Scalia, the court’s majority arrogantly usurped the right of the people to decide this important issue for themselves within the context of the legislative process. Moreover, unwilling to simply deny the people a voice, wash their hands and go on summer vacation, the majority insulted supporters of traditional marriage with a high-handed and superfluous blood-libel. On their way out the door, the majority branded them as public enemies. (emphasis and editing added)

    Scalia wrote: It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

    Scalia explained that, …to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions.

    (For the SCOTUS majority) To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual.

    All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history.

  4. “All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history.”

    Human history? “So what’s the relevance of that?”, he asks rhetorically.

    The progressive-kind have already moved beyond not only Judeo-Christian standards, or Western standards, or American standards, but human, in any understandable or coherent configuration, standards. “Gender” was proposed as the first sexual politics social construction? “Human” is obviously next on the agenda proclaimed as aiming to end exclusion, to confer “dignity”, and to mandate affirmation and solidarity. And as “person” replaces human …

    Yorkshire no doubt imagined he was proposing a reductio ad absurdum with his rhetorical question on Truth Before Dishonor.

    Or maybe he didn’t. In either case, whether he did or he didn’t, the truth is, he wasn’t.

  5. Editor says:

    This is going to get uglier.

    Churches are the agents of the Federal Government to perform marriage ceremonies, therefore must abide by the laws of the land. This is not ugly.

    For Roman Catholic churches, and all churches for that matter, if located in a state which currently does not by state law permit gay marriages, there is no issue at this point in time. It is only for churches in states which do permit gay marriages where they will have to make a choice. As I understand the SCOTUS decision, these churches can either opt out or opt in. If they opt in, they must obey the law, which means they must marry gay couples who request it. Otherwise, they can opt out of performing marriages altogether.

    What Scalia and Ropelight apparently do not understand, is that this SCOTUs ruling to overturn DOMA at the Federal level, actually expands traditional marriage, which is a good thing for those individuals who, through no fault of their own, were conceived with certain genes which alter “normal” sexual attractions.

    I’ve never understood the reasoning that says that gay marriage is a threat to so-called traditional marriage, since traditional-traditional marriage will continue unchanged.

    The real “ugly” resides in those like Scalia and Ropelight, and others, who are perfectly comfortable with denying gay couples the many benefits which come with legal marriage. You two have lost that battle, I’m happy to say!

  6. Rebus very much understands the point:

    For Roman Catholic churches, and all churches for that matter, if located in a state which currently does not by state law permit gay marriages, there is no issue at this point in time. It is only for churches in states which do permit gay marriages where they will have to make a choice. As I understand the SCOTUS decision, these churches can either opt out or opt in. If they opt in, they must obey the law, which means they must marry gay couples who request it. Otherwise, they can opt out of performing marriages altogether.

    While I don’t think you quite understand the decision — it didn’t mention churches at all — you are very much right on target with the agenda of the left. They want more than just homosexual marriage for those who desire it, but wish to use the power of government to force everyone else to comply.

    Thus far — and I will admit to being somewhat surprised at their patience — there has been no lawsuit against a church for refusing to perform the ceremony. There have, however, been lawsuits seeking damages from people who rent meeting halls or bake wedding cakes and the like who refused to rent them their halls or bake them their cakes.

    The real “ugly” resides in those like Scalia and Ropelight, and others, who are perfectly comfortable with denying gay couples the many benefits which come with legal marriage. You two have lost that battle, I’m happy to say!

    If the only issue was “the many benefits which come with legal marriage,” such concerns would have been amply met by the various civil unions or domestic partnership laws which exist; some might require some tweaking, but that’s simple enough. Those weren’t good enough, because it was never really the legal benefits of marriage that they were seeking, but the name of marriage. Their goal is as it has always been: to persuade the public that homosexual relationships are just as good and just as normal as heterosexual ones. Only a legal status with the same name as marriage would serve to achieve that goal.

  7. “Churches are the agents of the Federal Government to perform marriage ceremonies, therefore must abide by the laws of the land.”

    Bullshit! The federal government does not perform marriage ceremonies. Secondly, marriage ceremonies in the church have been going on a lot longer than have those of any of our states. It was the states that incorporated a “legal definition” of marriage into their legal codes, not the other way around.

    ” If they opt in, they must obey the law, which means they must marry gay couples who request it. Otherwise, they can opt out of performing marriages altogether.”

    Great reasoning you filthy tyrant. If they “opt in” they must discard their religious beliefs and submit to your heathen desires. If they “opt out” those of us who believe in and practice said religion may not receive this holy sacrament because it hurts your queer feelings.

    You may not like it Rebus but we Christians have our rights too and our rights relating to our church and freedom of religion is neither your nor SCOTUS’s business.

    ” You two have lost that battle, I’m happy to say!”

    Of course you are, you’re a lousy tyrant who cannot abide free people and their free associations. A bully and a tyrant just like all your leftist pig friends. You just can’t stand allowing anyone freedom of religion even when you don’t practice it yourself.

    BTW liar, I just got another premium increase from my health care carrier of $270 per month starting August. I quote the letter ” This premium may include state and federal TAXES and FEES under the Affordable Care Act. You F’n liar! Your whole party is a party of frauds, cheats, gangsters, tyrants and above all LIARS! So now to keep my rates down I opted for a $7500 deductible.

  8. ” … good thing for those individuals who, through no fault of their own …”

    “Through no fault of their own.” Where have I read that supposedly justifying formulation before?

    So – to focus on the more interesting formal question – the form of your argument is that if some entity is not at fault for the impulse it feels (i.e., it has not deliberately and reflectively chosen to manifest that impulse), it somehow follows that the subsequent interpersonal manifestation or acting out of that impulse must to be considered as socially tolerable or justified?

    “… were conceived with certain genes which alter “normal” sexual attractions.”

    1. Can you provide evidence for that?

    2. If true, then wouldn’t a search for gene therapy be the logical long term approach?

    3. Suppose that all abnormal and potentially harmful sexual tastes could easily be corrected at the juvenile or fetal stage before they manifest in an adult, like, say, correcting a “gene for” diabetes? Any objection to parents doing that?

    4. Suppose that most people chose to have their “gay” fetus aborted or cured before birth, and although the perverse sexual taste impulses were largely eradicated from most of the population some people did not, and as per your hypothesis of genetic transmission, continued to produce sexually disordered offspring. What obligation would the “normal” then have to socially underwrite or support an obnoxious choice on the part of others?

  9. Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat mankind’s greatest mistakes.

    Can churches be required to enforce government policies? That question was raised over 825 years ago when a stubborn potentate famously encouraged his minions to resolve the issue in his favor:

    What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household who let their Lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?

    And thus did Henry’s words set his knights aflame to take up the sword and murder Thomas Becket.

  10. Remarkable, Hoagie, how you find it impossible to participate in a debate without making personal and slanderous attacks, thus exhibiting the basic weakness of your arguments.

    It might surprise you to know that my solution to this problem was to continue with traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and establish civil unions in all 50 states which grant the full legal benefits of marriage, but without calling the union of same gender folks marriages.

    The problem is that there are numerous states who refused to grant civil unions, so the neglected couples opted to go all the way, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Who can blame them?

  11. Ropelight, it is my understanding that no church is required to perform marriages. However, when they do, they act as agents of the Federal Government. Following yesterdays SCOTUS ruling, churches in states which do not recognize same gender marriages, are then faced with the opt in or opt out decision. Opt out means no marriages at all. I believe this is correct.

  12. “Rebus says:
    Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 17:05

    Ropelight, it is my understanding that no church is required to perform marriages. However, when they do, they act as agents of the Federal Government.”

    When did those persons officiating at a marriage ceremony, become agents for the Federal government? Please provide a cite under law.

  13. I thought there is a separation between church and state Rebus. Then how the hell is a church an “agent of the federal government”? I thought that Congress shall pass no law requiring establishment of religion. Then how could Congress establish a church as an agent?

  14. It could be argued that priests are agents of the various state governments, in that they are licensed by the states to perform marriages, but they are not federal agents.

    Rebus has told us what the left would want: a situation such as exists in France, where churches marry only in a religious sense, and “To be legally recognized, a marriage in France must take place at a town hall (Mairie).” The marriage rate in France dropped from 7.8 per 1,000 people in 1970, just a tad below the European average of 7.9, to 3.9 in 2010 (well below the European average of 4.4), and 3.7 in 2011. Naturally, the bastardy percentage rose dramatically, with 6.8% of live births being illegitimate in 1970, rising to 55.0% in 2010. A pacte civil de solidarité, or a civil union in France, is now the preferred method, in part because it can be dissolved simply by a registered letter.

    Perhaps not Rebus individually, but many of our friends on the left are perfectly happy to see such a development: it weakens religion in general, and religion has that uncomfortable way of telling people that there are some things that they simply should not do; copulating with someone of the same sex happens to be one of those things.

    Marriage exists because every previous generation recognize that sex must be regulated in some fashion, because sex produces children, and children have to be cared for and properly reared. With the twin pillars of artificial contraception and legal infanticide, the left appear to think that they have broken the requirements imposed by biology, but the results have actually been a skyrocketing number of children born to unmarried mothers, children who barely know or never know whom their father is — assuming that their mothers know themselves — and a generation of children who have been very poorly reared; that’s why our crime rate is so high, and that’s why our prisons are filled with bastards.

    It’s almost as though the great wisdom of our current times, a wisdom which arrogantly states that it is so much better than all of that which came before, isn’t quite as wise as our friends on the left like to believe.

  15. Regarding “agents of the Federal government” …

    Most Christians, no matter how disengaged from their religion or its practice, will probably have heard that although a minister officiates at a wedding ceremony and over the exchange of vows, and calls upon God to witness the bond, it is the participants who actually “do” the marriage.

    In the case of Catholics, a priest administers the sacrament, but strictly speaking, the husband and wife to be, “perform the marriage” by freely consenting to the covenant before witnesses.

    “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.”

    “The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage …”

    “Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.”

    Perry, er, Sebum, is obviously confused about what is actually taking place and who is “agent”; as obviously, are most of the imbeciles of the left who see marriage as a useful social validation of their particular form of existence.

    How stupid, really, can progressives actually be? I guess the glabrous cheeked, glinting lensed Kennedy’s endless, sweet mystery of life trilling, provides some inkling.

    For a bit of a laugh, contemplate this passage from R.C. canon law as you try to envision the pantomime marriages of homosexuals as “blest” by the state.

    1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.”

    But no, no procreative intent. No natural power to do so as a result of the union. No lifelong commitment. And obviously no way to traditionally consummate the relationship contract and no natural purpose for such a “marital” contract or social interest, in the first place. Shrug.

    So … what the f–k is the state – meaning the populace at large – being pestered to waste their time witnessing to? Oh yeah, the “dignity” of some supposedly self-creative act.

    Why would anyone in their right mind concern themselves with, legally bind themselves to be concerned with, and seek to dignify through legal recognition, such a completely pointless activity?

    They wouldn’t.

    Well, unless I guess, you are convinced that all life is ultimately pointless, and such a variation on a theme makes no difference anyway. Though, that perspective is certainly no argument commending it, nor for advancing the case for affirming that anyone else should hold either it or the participants in anything like respect. In fact, any such nihilistic justification actually cuts against itself.

    Not that a “progressive” would notice such little details.

    Of course, there is the matter of those tax deductions and insurance benefits.

    Hardly seems necessary though to restructure the institution of marriage in order to make some willing human receptacle the beneficiary of its user’s estate.

    But, so it goes among the deconstructed.

  16. Remarkable, Hoagie, how you find it impossible to participate in a debate without making personal and slanderous attacks, thus exhibiting the basic weakness of your arguments.

    Yeah! The next you know, Hoagie, you’ll be actually threatening people for real like someone who was suspended from this blog twice, and then permanently banned!

  17. I thought there is a separation between church and state Rebus. Then how the hell is a church an “agent of the federal government”? I thought that Congress shall pass no law requiring establishment of religion. Then how could Congress establish a church as an agent?

    Don’t confuse him, Hoagie. He’s trying to figure out another handle by which to “fool” everyone here!

  18. The obvious truth is that we don’t have complete separation of church and state, nor does the Constitution require such. We have no established state church — what the establishment clause really means to prohibit — but the churches and government are intertwined in all sorts of things. Priests and ministers do serve as (unpaid) agents of the state, witnessing marriages, we have chaplains in the military and several civilian functions (Congress has a chaplain), many precincts use church facilities as polling places, in some states the public schools provide school bus service for parochial schools, we provide government insured student loans to students going to private and religious schools, we have ROTC programs at religious schools, we have chapels on military bases, we note religion on soldier’s dog tags, some of the service academies play religious schools (Navy playing Notre Dame in football the most obvious example), we count donations to churches as charitable contributions as far as income taxes are concerned, and we do not tax churches. All of those things a simple, common sense interactions which are for the good of society as well as for the good of the churches.

  19. This is going to get uglier.

    And here’s how:
    Polygamists Welcome SC Rulings on Gay Marriage Predicting Relationships with Multiple People Next
    Thursday, June 27, 2013

    Polygamy activists have spoken of their hopes that the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings on gay marriage could lead to a breakthrough for their cause too.

    The top court in the U.S. yesterday ruled that the federal government must recognise same-sex marriages, and allowed judges to overrule a ban on gay marriage in California.

    And some polygamists predict that the decisions will ‘blaze the marriage equality trail’, saying that ‘the nuclear family is not the majority any more’.

    Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/2013/06/polygamists-welcome-sc-rulings-on-gay-marriage-predicting-relationships-with-multiple-people-next/#ixzz2XSd0gzJc

    Then watch out for beastiality. Will give a whole new meaning to “My Friend Flicka” :-|

  20. DNW says:
    Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 21:08

    This will add cheer to Dana’s outlook. A certain Catholic conservative activist has his say on events in Rome the last couple of days.
    http://www.churchmilitant.tv/fullpreview/?vidID=vort-2013-06-27-b
    Although one shouldn’t take this report without some skepticism, it looks to be bad enough.
    Subversion, in the state in the churches, in the schools …
    No wonder this country, the entire western world, has systemic problems.

    Well, doesn’t that just brighten my day. Where to start? This report and Gutting DOMA is oh so cheerful, not. Reggie Love (Y’all can look that up – hint 9/11/12). Well with gutting DOMA, Polygamy is a natural next step (see above), hell throw in beastiality. Then BO has cut 10 to 12 Brigades from the Army. I wonder if he thinks we’ll be safer? Not on this planet. Snowden is now a sideshow for BO, he thinks Putin will hand him over. If not, at least send that woman spy back from a few years ago. Much better looking than Snowden. BO has succeeded in having the Right run and fret in all directions, meanwhile, the RINOs caved on amnesty. Right now I seriously fret that this country will not survive back to the form it was 10 years ago, or is, as Dana said, Orwell’s 1984 is a training manual. It sure feels like it. Got all that NSA?

  21. In my view, the church official who performs a wedding ceremony is performing as an agent of the Federal Government, in that the result of his position an action is taken which then determines the marriage benefits to which the married couple is entitled. A Justice of the Peace who weds a couple is performing the same service.

  22. In my view, the church official who performs a wedding ceremony is performing as an agent of the Federal Government, in that the result of his position an action is taken which then determines the marriage benefits to which the married couple is entitled. A Justice of the Peace who weds a couple is performing the same service.

    The solution is easy: If a couple who wants to get married are violating a particular church’s doctrine, then they get married in a secular ceremony.

  23. Rebus refuses correction:

    In my view, the church official who performs a wedding ceremony is performing as an agent of the Federal Government, in that the result of his position an action is taken which then determines the marriage benefits to which the married couple is entitled. A Justice of the Peace who weds a couple is performing the same service.

    What, you couldn’t accept the fact that a priest or minister — or Justice of the Peace for that matter — is acting as a state agent, because such people are licensed by the states?

    Your stated opinion, that such people are de facto federal agents, runs completely contrary to the Court opinions you celebrated; in United States v Windsor, the Court held that the relevant section of DoMA was unconstitutional precisely because the federal government was usurping a state function.

    If your position is correct, then United States v Windsor was incorrectly decided: the Congress would have absolute authority over federal agents.

  24. Hube wrote:

    The solution is easy: If a couple who wants to get married are violating a particular church’s doctrine, then they get married in a secular ceremony.

    Yes, that solution is simple, and perfectly sensible. If we were a people of common sense and tolerance, that is exactly how it would be handled. The trouble is that I do not believe we are a people of common sense and tolerance, and that there will be some homosexual couples who will attempt to use same-sex marriage as a club with which to attack the Church.

  25. The solution is easy: If a couple who wants to get married are violating a particular church’s doctrine, then they get married in a secular ceremony.

    I agree.

    What, you couldn’t accept the fact that a priest or minister — or Justice of the Peace for that matter — is acting as a state agent, because such people are licensed by the states?

    I accept that. I then claim that a priest or minister, or Justice of the Peace, are acting as de facto agents of the State and Federal Governments, because their actions then determine both Federal and State benefits which accrue to the wedded couple.

  26. In Re Rebus …

    We all recognize the signature phrases, “In my view” … “through no fault of their own”, and the pattern of accusations.

    The familiar eruptions and charges of treason against those who fail to show sufficient collectivist spirit and enthusiasm, the approach of autistically Federalizing every legal and moral question, focusing almost exclusively through a nauseating, smeary, “social justice” lens …. geez.

    What began as a comical, even amusing little charade, is already wearing very thin.

  27. Editor says:
    Friday, 28 June 2013 at 09:25

    Hube wrote:

    The solution is easy: If a couple who wants to get married are violating a particular church’s doctrine, then they get married in a secular ceremony.

    Yes, that solution is simple, and perfectly sensible. If we were a people of common sense and tolerance, that is exactly how it would be handled. The trouble is that I do not believe we are a people of common sense and tolerance, and that there will be some homosexual couples who will attempt to use same-sex marriage as a club with which to attack the Church.”

    Understandable that you wish to state the case modestly, but it’s rather like predicting the earth will be found to be round.

  28. Rebus said: “…. my solution to this problem was to continue with traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and establish civil unions in all 50 states…”

    Mighty big of you Rebus. Your solution is to make all 50 ( 57? ) states do what you want regarding “civil unions”. How tolerant. So any state that does not want civil unions…..well? BTW, a civil union is a contract, we have contracts in all 57 states.

    But I just love the fact that you know what is best in all 57 states ( and D.C. ) Tyrant!

  29. Just so you know, my solution is also to continue traditional marriage between a man and a woman, to throw in some assorted buggering, legalize underage children, move a few dykes into the mix, sprinkle with some animals and stir with “transgendered” ( what ever the hell that is ) mutants then call the whole thing “normal” since it does not make any screwed up ass hole feel left out.

    You guys crack me up. Instead of helping these screwed up people you seek to legitimatize them. You don’t see a guy banging your son up the butt as a problem, just another constituent.

    I guess when you belong to a political party that has spent the last fifty years killing every baby they can get their hands on sooner or later you begin to run out of voters. So then you take up the gauntlet of freaks and homos, sprinkle in some 20 million illegals and bingo! a new voter base is born.

  30. On the lighter side, finally that stinking, lousy, commie pig Nelson Mandela is slowly and I hope painfully leaving this earth. He can now join his fellow travelers Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin et al in hell.

    This piece of shit who took South Africa from the gem of the continent to a shit hole in a generation, rape and murder central as it has become. He and Winnie or Minnie or whatever his shit head wife’s name was can rot in hell. I hope they are both “necklaced” for eternity. Just a few more of the left’s hero’s that murder and rape their way to god-like status with the weak of mind.

  31. For Roman Catholic churches, and all churches for that matter, if located in a state which currently does not by state law permit gay marriages, there is no issue at this point in time. It is only for churches in states which do permit gay marriages where they will have to make a choice. As I understand the SCOTUS decision, these churches can either opt out or opt in. If they opt in, they must obey the law, which means they must marry gay couples who request it. Otherwise, they can opt out of performing marriages altogether.

    And thus we have, in one simple paragraph, the whole left wing agenda – Coercion.

    Or, to put it even more crudely – Do what we say, or we will bash your face in!

  32. There’s an easy explanation for Perry’s continued presence Eric. It was only his previous IP address that repeatedly misbehaved and was eventually banned, not him.

Comments are closed.